on 7/29/08 5:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com at WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
The title of this thread is a false dichotomy. There is not necessarily any loss in "quality" in making something more comprehensive. What you get rather is a bell-curve where the tailings have few, perhaps only one editor.
However if that one editor is moderately good at being a Wikipedian, they may be generating top-notch articles. Just ones with few other interested parties.
The idea that we need to stick to a smaller set of core articles in order to maintain quality has no evidence. Some of the articles with many editors are in sad shape.
Will Johnson
Will,
You're playing fast & loose with the word "comprehensive" here :-). This thread was meant to call attention to Wikipedia's seeming obsession with size as a measure of quality in a work. Most articles - most edits - most posts - -! The companies cited in the beginning of the thread are finally learning that bigger can mean thinner. And the thinner in their case means their bottom line.
Marc